Socialist Rifle Association member James Pogue’s long piece at Harper’s is worth a read. He mixes a hard leftist’s paranoid view of a racist, authoritarian, overclass-dominated America with some very lucid views on the the role of guns in society and the meaning and importance of the Second Amendment.
Owning a gun for any reason other than hunting or target practice—uses that account for only 21 percent of U.S. gun ownership—is an inherently political act. To draw a pistol and choose to shoot someone who has violated your safety or sense of safety is to arrogate to yourself the right to decide whether someone ought to live or die. Merely carrying a pistol for self-protection means arrogating to yourself the same right.
The Supreme Court’s 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision interpreted the Second Amendment’s provision for a “well regulated militia” as more or less an endorsement of that right and of the NRA-fed gun culture Faye was objecting to—a culture in which every private citizen is free to act as a deadly militia of one.
We talk less about the more directly political role that guns have played in our national life. Most often, guns in civilian hands have served as a means for power—usually white power—to violently exert itself, rather than as guarantors of liberty. This history extends back to the first armed slave patrols and up through the pro-Trump militias and suburban neighborhood-watch groups like the one to which George Zimmerman belonged when he killed Trayvon Martin.
Gun-control laws have in fact been designed expressly to keep guns out of the hands of black Americans. One of the key components of Southern Black Codes—laws reasserting white supremacy after the Civil War—was the attempt to prevent black people from owning guns. Martin Luther King Jr.’s concealed-carry permit application was denied by Alabama in 1956, and California’s first law barring the open carry of a loaded firearm, passed in 1967, was a direct response to the Black Panthers’ “cop watch” patrols in Oakland.
More recently, Michael Bloomberg justified the wanton stop-and-frisk policies of his mayoral administration in New York by characterizing them as the aggressive enforcement of gun laws.
The elite fear of a gun-owning underprivileged class of Americans points to a truth about the place of armed politics in our national self-conception. There’s a reason why John Brown is an American hero, and why Ida B. Wells wrote that “a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home.”
At moments of political extremity, guns can remind those in power that there’s some physical risk to leaving people feeling hopeless. Eugene Debs took heart, after the violent repression of miners’ strikes at Paint Creek and Ludlow, in the idea that the miners could arm themselves. “When the law fails, and in fact, becomes a bulwark of crime and oppression,” he wrote in 1914, “then an appeal to force is not only morally justified, but becomes a patriotic duty. The Declaration of Independence proclaims this truth.”
In recent decades, the idea of guns as a last resort against unchecked authority has been almost entirely excised from respectable national conversation. In an age of mass surveillance, in which the state possesses incredible destructive powers, many TV commentators and politicians have stopped believing that guns could be used for such a purpose.
This skepticism was recently taken to a darkly comic extreme when the California congressman and former presidential candidate Eric Swalwell responded on Twitter to a suggestion that a government program to confiscate assault rifles would lead to a civil war. “It would be a short war my friend,” he wrote. “The government has nukes.”
Yeah… Socialists don’t have rights. By their own choice and ideology. You can’t spend your entire life undermining the Constitution and then claim the protections of that same document.
Oh, and using Soviet iconography is morally no different, and arguably worse, than using Nazi iconography.
Reciprocity is the magic word. They don’t want rights for me, I don’t give theirs any consideration.
They don’t even want rights for themselves.
The moment they have whatever fantasy revolution they’re dreaming of the first order of business is always to round up their like-minded brethren for fear of the next fantasy revolution. Their friends, family and comrade combatants occupy the first bunks opened in the gulag.
Strongly disagree, Dan.
We should always be the champions of Natural rights, for everyone. The moment we decide to limit such rights for anyone who doesn’t hold the same views as we do, we begin to behave in the very manner our Leftists opponents do. We are the shining Light On The Hill, to loosely quote the great Ronaldus Magnus.
Would that be the same Ronaldus Magnus who increased taxes more than any previous president, instituted firearm import restrictions via executive order, and singed the FOPA with the despicable and not actually passed Hughes amendment?
With friends like that, who needs enemas.
That would be the same Ronaldus who brought us out of the Democratic malaise of the Carter administration, jumped started the economy, brought jobs back, and faced down the Soviets until the U.S.S.R. had so many stress cracks in it that it finally collapsed a couple of years later (after a 70-yr run).
Show me any person lifted up to be great, and someone, somewhere will find a legitimately poor decision that person made along the way. Ronaldus Magnus was not perfect, but you cannot say with a straight face that eight more years under the Democrats during the ’80s (starting with a second Carter term) would have been better.
And now, during this time, we have the great Donaldus Magnus. Not a perfect man, to be sure, but please…if you dare, tell us all how we would have been better off if Hillary had won.
The microprocessor revolution and the increased productivity it brought, improved US economic conditions not anything a politician did.
SRA was at least out fighting the AWB in VA recently. I do not know that I can say the same of all conservatives.
Yeah… and Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Unfortunately, Leftist still do have rights.
Even the ones they would sacrifice to the God of Democratic Socialism (Marxism, Leninism, Maoism).
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
Mao Tse-tung
As I keep pointing out… PEOPLE have rights. Commies aren’t people.
Amazing, it isn’t it? Almost like what we’ve been saying all along.🤪
Even a stopped clock is right twice each day.
And a clock that works is right all the time.
Not if one of the hands is intentionally pushed back. In that case, those who follow the clock will forever be behind.
Then the clock, by definition, isn’t working properly, and therefore isn’t the same as what I said.
Well, the guy has an appropriate last name…
He changed it from Sturmbannführer needed to be more subtle.
“Owning a gun for any reason other than hunting or target practice—uses that account for only 21 percent of U.S. gun ownership—is an inherently political act.”
No. I liken it to collecting art. Fine checkering on a beautiful piece of walnut. Bluing from yesteryear. Steampunk versions of long guns.
It’s just art that happens to make noise too. Functional art.
Ditto here.
Tactical Tupperware too!!! Functional art.
I like guns. That is all the reason I need.
I’m particularly fond of my working Russian farm implements. Many dead Nazis would have agreed that the 7.62x54R is a most sufficient chambering.
Try Bloke On The Range trying to do a “Mad Minute” with a Mosin (and a Finnish m28). The best he did, after lubing the gun and clips to prevent jams, was 15 rounds. A SMLE could easily do 25-30 without much effort.
As if art is not political
I don’t think he knows what “arrogate” means.
Or maybe he’s just an asshole. I suppose there’s nothing inherently wrong with a dipshit owning a dictionary.
In other news Philidephia will not be arresting people they deem “non-violent” to try to minimize disease spread in their jails.
Strych9,
“In other news Philidephia will not be arresting people they deem “non-violent” to try to minimize disease spread in their jails.”
Should not be an issue. Everyone in Philly will be sheltering in place. Crime will stop; there will be no one to arrest. All will be well.
Yeah. Right. Trust me.
Or he used Grammarly and that’s what he thought was most sophisticated sounding of its suggested alternatives for his original word.
Hmmm…time for a road trip to jewelry stores in that town. A couple bricks in the car for those big windows. It could be a profitable day for some young person. Walk in, take your mask off, cough and spit on a few clerks and you’re home free.
How long before the crooks figure that one out?
Victoria,
Let us know when you will be arriving; a bunch of us on this blog live within an hour of Philly. We can flash-mob.
Jokes about committing crimes aside (ahem)…
Most municipalities have laws on their books prohibiting the use of facial masks in public areas that inhibit law enforcement’s ability to visually identify a person. Exemptions are typically made for celebrations (Halloween) and medical gear.
In Asian countries, it has long been a common practice to wear a face mask in public as a preventative measure. As I now see people around me wearing masks in the grocery stores, in the office, and even while outside walking their dogs(!!), I wonder if we’ll begin to see a social acceptance here in the U.S.A. of wearing masks in like manner, even after this COVID panic is over. A couple of years from now, cops might not think twice about the sight of people wearing masks while walking through town, let alone want to even approach them for questions.
Hey, I just had an idea for how to avoid unwanted LEO “stop and talk” conversations…
Facial recognition toys are going to need improvements too.
Haz,
“Jokes about committing crimes aside (ahem)…”
We would have invited you, but you live too far away. Travel bans and all that.
LOL!!
You’re kidding! It’s a crime to wear a mask while robbing a jewelry store? That’s un-American! Can I wear a mask if I also kill the proprietor? I don’t want to get in any trouble.
to Larry in TX
(smile)
Depends, did you declare the robbery income on your taxes?
In Asian countries? Been to LAX lately?
He aping someone he admires. Hero worship and invocation is at the core of socialist culture. “Bright lights” are their saints.
I think he knows what “arrogate” means, but his addled brain is causing him to trip over his forked tongue.
Well, he has the “take for oneself” part, but skips the rest of the definition, “without justification.” Or if he knows that this is a part of the definition, then he is being hypocritical, since the “political” part of owning guns involves killing people. Or maybe he means that individual self defense cannot be justified, but that killing in defense of an ideology is? Hmm, I is confused.
“Well, he has the “take for oneself” part, but skips the rest of the definition, “without justification.” ”
The author perfectly understands “arrogate”. Governments are the only legitimate holders of power, not individuals. Thus, “arrogating” the right (power) to determine life or death is never justified for an individual.
If you alter your line of reasoning to match the leftists/liberals/fascists/statists, you can see that the author’s statement makes perfect sense.
Mark gets at the heart of what I meant.
However, Sam might be right, which is what I meant by “asshole”.
His usage is correct, but his binary assessment of purpose betrays a simplistic mind incapable of nuance or of 2nd and 3rd order effects.
IOW, a typical leftist.
strych9
“I don’t think he knows what “arrogate” means.”
Maybe he does or maybe he doesn’t. Anyway, I didn’t, so I looked it up in my handy-dandy American Heritage College Dictionary, as follows:
ar-ro-gate tr. v. 1. To take or claim for oneself without right; appropriate. 2. To ascribe on behalf of another in an unwarranted manner.
As-cribe v. 1. To, attribute to a specified cause, source, or origin. 2. To assign as a quality or characteristic: ascribed jealousy to the critics.
If he does know what *arrogate* means, it puts a whole new slant on the rest of what he had to say. Anyway, I thought I’d share these definitions with anyone else, who might be in the same boat as me. I’ve skipped over the etymology given in the dictionary in the interests of brevity.
“Arrogate” is a word that tells the socialist academics you’re one of them. He *had* to use it somehow.
That word was everywhere back in my grad school days. In the 16 years since I left the academic Marxist cult and rejoined America, I can count the number of times I’ve seen it used on one hand…two of them right here, today.
“To draw a pistol and choose to shoot someone who has violated your safety or sense of safety is to arrogate to yourself the right to decide whether someone ought to live or die.”
Really? The aggressor is not the one who decided to put both you and the aggressor at risk? The aggressor is not the one who decided that your safety would be in jeopardy?
The reality is that those of us who carry firearms are not deciding whether someone ought to live or die; we are deciding to defend ourselves against persons who have decided to endanger us.
We’re deciding whether or not WE (or our loved ones) live or die, the aggressor already made their choice.
VicRattlehead,
Yes! Exactly!
To put it simply: “don’t start none, won’t be none.”
We’re deciding that we want to live or at least not spend days/weeks/months in a hospital trying to recover from damage inflicted by a criminal.
Jakee308,
Yes! Exactly!
According to an online dictionary, the definition of arrogate is to claim or take something without justification. It never occurs to them, or it doesn’t matter, that this also applies to a 6’6″, 300 pound thug preying on a victim who is a foot shorter and half the weight.
Krav MAGA, dude.
No. No amount of krav maga (or judo, jiu-jitsu, karate, kung-fu, Brazilian kickbox or any other fighting technique flavor of the day) can help my 71 years old mother against young, healthy, big and aggressive attacker. A little handgun can.
Cost (in both time and money) of attaining sufficient proficiency in each one is incomparable.
It is much less risky even for young and fit man to keep his distance and simply shoot the attacker until he stops his attack, then roll on the floor with him for misguided sense of fair play in a deadly jeopardy. There are no silver medals in fight for your life. Use any advantage you have and you stil are not guaranteed to prevail. Why would you not use the best tool available if your life is at stake?
“Most often, guns in civilian hands have served as a means for power—usually white power—to violently exert itself…”
There’s nothing wrong with that though.
Clearly he’s ignoring large cities. Not too many armed white men on horses in Baltimore or Chicago.
Hehe…. 😉
I would go so far as to say if we restricted gun sales to only people who are NOT on government assistance of any kind, then people who misuse guns as criminals would drop off completely….
We ALL know what happens when a gun unlawfully ends up in the ghetto…. they immediately revert to using said firearm for criminal purposes… giving guns a bad rap amongst the low IQ “educated idiots” (worthless college graduates who produce NOTHING)…. You know, the worthless elite class….
Funny how much alike the rich idiots and the ghetto trash are….. both are useless and need attitude adjustments…. and forced to work by threat of imprisonment…
I’ve honestly never seen a left-handed AK like in the top picture.
bigstock sucks for gun related images.
Better?
Sorta.
Shall we talk about the trigger / index finger weirdness next? 🙂
I’m a bit concerned about the Philly criminal release. I’ve long thought this was a move to aid achieving totalitarianism. It works this way; put criminals back on the street. This forces citizens (who have either been disarmed or brainwashed into being disarmed) to reach to government to save them and the government responds by not putting criminals in prison but imprisoning and depriving citizens of their rights.
Well I hope they don’t travel too far from Philly. I’m about 45 mi from it and if they get this far they’ll find we don’t have a lot of police because we don’t need them as we’re pretty much law abiding. (tellingly the majority of law breakers are of minority/ethnic)
They’re liable to find that we will take action on our own about anyone attempting to take what is not theirs.
I’m certainly glad I decide a few years back to go back to being armed AND stockpiling ammo. Our Dem Governor has been trying a number of different ways to undermine the strong basis of firearms in PA. Particularly that possession is enshrined in our constitution not just the US one.
Ah well we’re living in interesting times. Buy ammo. If you can.
California has been putting “nonviolent” state prisoners back on the street or in county jails ever since a federal court ordered it to eliminate its chronic prison overcrowding a couple of years ago. And with all of those state prisoners taking up space in county jails to serve out their sentences, there is no room for holding “nonviolent” newly arrested criminals, and they are on a catch and release system, unless such person has caused injury to “the powers that be” (e.g. a police officer). So if you steal a car, sell drugs, burgle a home or business, you will be out at dawn the next day.
The Libertarians Liberals and the Left celebrate the release of “non violent” criminals. By their definition of what “non violent” means. Just read Reason magazine or the MSM. They say we have too many people in our prison system. I have offered a solution before. We just get the shoot dead on site a criminal when they are caught stealing. Or when they rob, rape or vandalize private property.
By the logic stated in the article, anyone, as in anyone, who uses a firearm for other than sport is arrogating to themselves the privilege of determining life or death. Circumstances do not matter, nor excuses.
According to the author, anyone, who chooses “To draw a pistol and choose to shoot someone who has violated your safety or sense of safety is to arrogate to yourself the right to decide whether someone ought to live or die. Merely carrying a pistol for self-protection means arrogating to yourself the same right.” One does not get to decide that one class of people, under favored circumstance, may arrogate to themselves “the right to decide whether someone ought to live or die.” The right to use deadly force in self-defense is universal, or it is not justified at all.
Liberal/leftist/statist/Dimwitocrat minds are a rat’s nest of confusion and contridiction.
Read the last line of his screed, Sam, he makes a point that I agree with :
“…but the point of the Second Amendment isn’t that an armed people can necessarily push over the government. It’s just that an armed people can only be pushed so far.”
It’s a polite reminder to those who seek power… 🙂
“Read the last line of his screed, Sam, he makes a point that I agree with”
The last line is insightful, but the thrust of the article destroys any credibility for a single line in the article. Sorta like all the reporting on the Mueller investigation, paras upon paras declaring Trump guilty of something, then a single line in a late para that notes much of the assertions already presented have no actual proof.
Well, yeah, there is that…
Sam:
You said it better than I could.
“Sam:
You said it better than I could.”
That would be odd. Are you sure you were reading one of my comments? I get lost sometimes as to what I respond to.
Maybe you should take another look at my rambling.
If the armed citizenry is unable or unwilling to push over the gubmint, then being pushed too far is empty and meaningless. Unless some very severe consequences are always a real possibility, then the gubmint can push as far as it wants with total impunity. So that closing statement is total nonsense.
I’m all for these commie LARPfags tooling up. “I shot’em because he was pointing a gun at me” sounds a lot better than “I shot him because he was a communist”.
Meh…commies have been ruling with the barrel of a gun for quite awhile. Pathetic rambling diatribe comrade Pogue!
“But but but, we’re opressed! We’re victims! I mean, never mind the fact we overwhelmingly tend to white, upper middle class millennials who haven’t had to do a hard day of work in our lives! We support speak for the working class because they’re to stupid to do it themselves! Now shut up, or we’ll throw you in the gulag, the fucking Nazi Fascist Cis white male!”
-every commie LARPfag ever
If there is a group that needs to have gun ownership closely monitored and restricted, even denied, it’s leftists. No good can come from groups like Antifa being armed.
Unfortunately, it would take an extreme 2×4 across the forehead crisis such as coronavirus we are experiencing for leftists to realize they need the 2nd Amendment.
““To draw a pistol and choose to shoot someone who has violated your safety or sense of safety is to arrogate to yourself the right to decide whether someone ought to live or die.”
What a pretentious little asshole using big words to make himself sound intelligent (you failed, you commie twit). “Arrogate” means choose WITHOUT justification. If someone is threatening my safety I AM JUSTIFIED in defending myself by whatever means I deem necessary.
The article excuses threatening, dangerous behavior by one person completely while portraying self defense as a one man militia execution squad. Trayvon gets the innocence flag too while Zimmerman is a white supremacist now.
Had to stop at that point, it’s clear where he’s going.
This communist was very happy to buy guns illegally. As far as I can tell from reading this article. He still supports government controlling gun sales. He hates the government. Useless it’s a communist government he dreams of for America. He like nearly all white Liberal gun owners is late to the history of Racist Gun Control. People like him vote for white Liberal Democrats who publicly endorsed the Mulford Act in California.
As I said before on TTAG. The Socialist is the most violent of all political types. Three of the four US Presidents were assassinated by a Socialist. John Wilkes Booth was just your average racist.
It was the Socialist Progressives who removed 2A education and rifle teams in the public schools. And they continue to advocate against this education in the schools.
He like many Leftists is a mentally dangerous paranoid. Marijuana intoxication induced? I’m not sure. It’s the “right wing” NRA that has spent money on lawsuits to force an end to gun bans in Public Housing projects. The Left spends money to force the Boy Scouts to take girls and Homosexuals. And now the Boy Scout no longer exists. They filed for bankruptcy. Many city boys and girls over the decades had their first introduction to guns in the Scouts. But no longer.
I don’t trust Liberal, socialist progressive, leftist, gun owners. They like Libertarian gun owners place gun rights on the same level as their social policy demands. Drug legalization is equally important as gun rights? Public health care is equally important as gun rights? Whatever social policy they want is more important than gun rights?
As far as I’m concerned the 2A is the only important right we have. The 1st and the rest of the amendments, we lost a very long time ago.
btw
The Left was very happy to support the Mulford Act. They supported the 1968 gun Control Act. The Left lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. And then raised the age to buy a gun from 16 to 18 and now up to 21 years of age. The Left (obama) sent machine guns, armored military vehicles and grenade launchers to civilian police departments all over the country. The Left (obama) purchased millions of rounds of ammunition for the education department. And other non military federal departments.
The Left does indeed like THEIR guns. His hero, the white socialist Eugene Debs referred to black men as apes and rapists. Yes there is a great deal of history not taught in schools.
Read the whole article. I laughed out loud when the author said their little gun club has a “Central Committee.” What’s next? A “Five Year Plan?”
If these people spent as much time studying and working as they do protesting and mouthing off on Reddit, they wouldn’t have anything to complain about.
Yes, because their idea of government is neither racist nor authoritarian…
Cock and Bull
Said it before and I’ll said it again ….. Karl Marx preached the necessity of private ownership of arms including cannons. Problem is his utopian wet dream is inherently defective and always devolves instantly into secret police, mass arrests, brutal authoritarian and totalitarian strong-man dictatorships, purges, the very antithisis of their uptopia.
There has never been and can never be a Marxist Socialist State. Every attempt corrupts itself into something brutal in the first minutes of “The Revolution”. To include the sudden reverting from pro-people power to violent State suppression and disarmament of those very same people.
These modern day Marxists are as deluded as their idiot ancestors. Oh sure, they say they support our Second Amendment rights today. But the minute their revolution succeeds, the powerful among them would do what always happens. The elites of the leadership would instantly see any voices of opposition, or less than full throated support, as anti-revolutionaries, and the slide into bloody purges and dictatorship would proceed at full speed.
The current insanity in Venezuela being merely the most recent example of this history-proven fact.
The Democrat Party owns the legacy of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, lynching, the KKK, Eugenics, Gun Control, etc. Frankly a Black American belonging to the democRat Party makes as much sense as a Jew belonging to hitler’s socialist nazi party.
Just a Socialist/communist spin on what we already knew. The major problem with Socialist/communist is they want guns in the people’s hands to put “THEM” in Power. After that happens they strip POSSESION and confiscate firearms they justify because you won’t need them anymore after the power grab. No, they want all the guns so “THEY” won’t face a revolt to take them out of power.
Same Socialist shit, different day: its not about the firearms, it’s about using them to support Socialism/Communism.
At a time when cities are being locked down, freedom of assembly is being abridged everywhere, Second Amendment rights are being denied, travel curtailed by the military in New York, and the Constitution used for toilet paper, do I really need a socialist screed to tell me why I should own guns?
And written by a pogue no less! How very fitting.
Second Amendment *PROTECTIONS*
Our rights don’t come from the Constitution or the Amendments. We — ALL PEOPLE OF THE EARTH — have the rights, certain governments protect those rights, some done. NO GOVERNMENT has the authority to infringe those rights, as that authority can NOT be delegated to government.
Let’s understand what we have and speak clearly to that. When we blindly repeat over and over again about “second amendment rights”, we instill the false notion that the right can be removed by simply repealing Amendment II. Nothing is further from the truth — the right remains, regardless of the amendment.
“we instill the false notion that the right can be removed by simply repealing Amendment II. ”
Your ability to legally exercise your natural, human and civil right to self-defense with firearms can be ended by repealing the Second Amendment. After that, you are on your own. The original intent of the constitution was scuttled when government created the exception to every word of the constitution: “compelling government interest”. From that flows, “no right is absolute” (modern interpretation: except abortion).
“Unalienable rights” no longer exist, legally. Worrying over phraseology of “gun rights” accomplishes zero in law, or politics. Telling POTG that somehow the use of shorthand confuses the anti-gun mob, or the courts, is superfluous. Trying to persuade the anti-gun brigade that “rights” do not stem from government is, likewise, ineffective.
If the task is communication with the enemy, terms must be understandable by the enemy. As in trying to negotiate with someone who speaks no english, the conversation must be translated into language familiar to the other party. As it stands, 2A defenders do not control the the language of 2A infringements. We have a near-impossible challenge of ever controlling the narrative (which means we really do not negotiate with anti-gunners, we trade unintelligible sounds (words).
Must be getting close to time for a “Constitutional Refresher”, to be held in D.C. preferable on the steps out in from of Congress. Everybody’s always looking for that perfect sound/video byte… Right?
“Must be getting close to time for a “Constitutional Refresher”,”
OMG. What are you thinking? We can’t let a dried-out piece of paper get in the way of doing the right thing(s). Even contemplating the constitution as some sort of carved-in-stone legal requirement is racisisisis. Next thing, you will want to require that every citizen and resident be able to actually read that banner of old fat white men of privilege. “Constitutional Refresher” is just code for indoctrination. The nation needs the flexibility to adjust law to whatever circumstance is harming the most people, the constitution just slows things down, and tells government what it can’t do. Bah, humbug !
Evidently this fellow never read the non-revionist history of The Union League during Reconstruction, before the white confiscation of firearms from blacks. I am not sure how much of this confiscation from blacks is true. What the controllers of the narrative don’t tell you is how The Union League, formerly the U.S. Sanitary Commission, linked up with the Yankee military occupation during Reconstruction and armed black mobs to pillage, kill etc. white southerners, most of whom were not allowed to have firearms. Thus, defenseless citizens at the mercy of the Yankee military and carpetbaggers and armed black mobs of the Union League (who by the way forced freedmen to vote Republican on pain of violence) gathered and the KKK was born as a way of defending themselves. Of course the KKK got out of hand following Reconstruction. Southerners no longer had much of a say in their own life. People who invade other nations often set off tidal waves of destabilizing forces which often end in violence. The leftist don’t like to hear this.
Read Washington’s KKK: The Union League by John Choades. Well documented by period sources. Evidently this fellow never read the non-revionist history of The Union League during Reconstruction, before the white confiscation of firearms from blacks. I am not sure how much of this confiscation from blacks is true. What the controllers of the narrative don’t tell you is how The Union League, formerly the U.S. Sanitary Commission, linked up with the Yankee military occupation during Reconstruction and armed black mobs to pillage, kill etc. white southerners, most of whom were not allowed to have firearms. Thus, defenseless citizens at the mercy of the Yankee military and carpetbaggers and armed black mobs of the Union League (who by the way forced freedmen to vote Republican on pain of violence) gathered and the KKK was born as a way of defending themselves. Of course the KKK got out of hand following Reconstruction. Southerners no longer had much of a say in their own life. People who invade other nations often set off tidal waves of destabilizing forces which often end in violence. The leftist don’t like to hear this.
Look you conservatives are wrong about a lot. I’m not going to label myself a leftist because I care about human rights or the environment. I flat out refuse the squeaky clean corporate talking points, even if racism/hate dressed up like straight talk can seem like the other side of that political coin. But…it baffles me…baffles me beyond reason why taking guns is a party requirement? Because I will become a conservative to keep mine if thats what it takes. Again, I deeply disagree with right wing apathy towards white supremacists violence/ideas and antipathy towards racial justice but if politics on the left dont support the constitution on guns we will continue to lose at politics. I think we need a new party. Thats why I will never register as a Dem. My parents taught us why gun ownership is required. Anyway, if you come after my guns my answer is the same as any right winger. You can have my AR15 the moment you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. Please come try.
“But…it baffles me…baffles me beyond reason why taking guns is a party requirement?”
Because it is a lethal threat to *their* power. Let’s suppose the Left gets what they claim they want – equality. True ‘equality’ is shared misery…
Racism rarely exists anymore. It is frankly almost gone here. When white kids dressing as black panther on halloween is racism i say nope. The left is about power. They want full control of the proletariat. There will be no middle class in the lefts future.
It should be illegal for any socialist or union thug to have a gun, leftist ideology is unAmerican! The government should make it legal to shoot somebody for supporting unions or socialism!
Yeah ok. Socialism no problem, but unions? Really? Fucktarded statement. People have the right to stand together and not get ass raped into poverty by corporate greed. Yeah work a guy to death for shit money, fuck their quality of life.
Fuck Socialists, but unions are needed. The decline of unions in America has eradicated the middle class. Rich or poor are what’s left with a small group in between.
I don’t want to get too far off topic but I just can’t let that statement lay there.
“Fuck Socialists, but unions are needed.”
Just more leftist entitlement. In my experience the only ones who need unions are lazy and/or stupid with no real work ethic. Take pride in your work and put in a honest days effort and you will get paid what you deserve in the end.
You are right, the middle class is disappearing. It got so rich, it mostly joined the upper class and therefore is nowhere to be found.
Unions priced our domestic labor out of the market and forced employers to export jobs to remain competitive.
From a historical standpoint, socialists have ALWAYS come down on the side of national/government possession of firearms whereas the personal ownership of firearms is deemed a threat to that political power structure.
I have found it interesting that socialists and communists have built the largest contingents of firearms bearing armies throughout that same history. Not to be ignored is the fact that those same armies have been responsible for the deaths of more of their own citizens than any invading army.
These folks will always disarm the general population in defense of their ideology and assemble huge cohorts of mindless, armed, uniformed goons to enforce those corrupt systems of thought.
It must also be kept in mind that socialists and communists do not view Truth as a virtue and have no shame because they have no honor. So, take everything you hear from these people as propaganda or lies or both.
Interesting juxtaposition As the Marxist Leftards are the ones responsible for the violations of the 2 nd. amendment and Constitution in general.
Commies aren’t people, and don’t believe the individual has any rights, therefore they cannot claim the protection of that which they disbelieve the existence of.
Gun control is racist…..gd people get more stupid every day….. the low IQ ANIMAL who wrote that garbage needs to be investigated for treason…..js
Defend your self …. no matter what the law or where I may live , have and will always have weapon / fire arm , loaded and ready in my home , on the street well up to you and the stare law . be safe , and alert . Take Care
Okay, that was senseless drivel and a waste of precious time. Didn’t bother finishing it.
That first paragraph was so moronic that I refuse to subject myself to the rest.
“a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home”
Truer words never spoken.
Why only black home? My home is tan colored. Is there any reason why a rifle should have a place of honor in my family?
“A rifle should have a place of honor in EVERY home.”
Yeah… Socialists don’t have rights. By their own choice and ideology. You can’t spend your entire life undermining the Constitution and then claim the protections of that same document.
Oh, and using Soviet iconography is morally no different, and arguably worse, than using Nazi iconography.
Reciprocity is the magic word. They don’t want rights for me, I don’t give theirs any consideration.
They don’t even want rights for themselves.
The moment they have whatever fantasy revolution they’re dreaming of the first order of business is always to round up their like-minded brethren for fear of the next fantasy revolution. Their friends, family and comrade combatants occupy the first bunks opened in the gulag.
Strongly disagree, Dan.
We should always be the champions of Natural rights, for everyone. The moment we decide to limit such rights for anyone who doesn’t hold the same views as we do, we begin to behave in the very manner our Leftists opponents do. We are the shining Light On The Hill, to loosely quote the great Ronaldus Magnus.
Would that be the same Ronaldus Magnus who increased taxes more than any previous president, instituted firearm import restrictions via executive order, and singed the FOPA with the despicable and not actually passed Hughes amendment?
With friends like that, who needs enemas.
That would be the same Ronaldus who brought us out of the Democratic malaise of the Carter administration, jumped started the economy, brought jobs back, and faced down the Soviets until the U.S.S.R. had so many stress cracks in it that it finally collapsed a couple of years later (after a 70-yr run).
Show me any person lifted up to be great, and someone, somewhere will find a legitimately poor decision that person made along the way. Ronaldus Magnus was not perfect, but you cannot say with a straight face that eight more years under the Democrats during the ’80s (starting with a second Carter term) would have been better.
And now, during this time, we have the great Donaldus Magnus. Not a perfect man, to be sure, but please…if you dare, tell us all how we would have been better off if Hillary had won.
The microprocessor revolution and the increased productivity it brought, improved US economic conditions not anything a politician did.
SRA was at least out fighting the AWB in VA recently. I do not know that I can say the same of all conservatives.
Yeah… and Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Unfortunately, Leftist still do have rights.
Even the ones they would sacrifice to the God of Democratic Socialism (Marxism, Leninism, Maoism).
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
Mao Tse-tung
As I keep pointing out… PEOPLE have rights. Commies aren’t people.
Amazing, it isn’t it? Almost like what we’ve been saying all along.🤪
Even a stopped clock is right twice each day.
And a clock that works is right all the time.
Not if one of the hands is intentionally pushed back. In that case, those who follow the clock will forever be behind.
Then the clock, by definition, isn’t working properly, and therefore isn’t the same as what I said.
Well, the guy has an appropriate last name…
He changed it from Sturmbannführer needed to be more subtle.
“Owning a gun for any reason other than hunting or target practice—uses that account for only 21 percent of U.S. gun ownership—is an inherently political act.”
No. I liken it to collecting art. Fine checkering on a beautiful piece of walnut. Bluing from yesteryear. Steampunk versions of long guns.
It’s just art that happens to make noise too. Functional art.
Ditto here.
Tactical Tupperware too!!! Functional art.
I like guns. That is all the reason I need.
I’m particularly fond of my working Russian farm implements. Many dead Nazis would have agreed that the 7.62x54R is a most sufficient chambering.
Try Bloke On The Range trying to do a “Mad Minute” with a Mosin (and a Finnish m28). The best he did, after lubing the gun and clips to prevent jams, was 15 rounds. A SMLE could easily do 25-30 without much effort.
As if art is not political
I don’t think he knows what “arrogate” means.
Or maybe he’s just an asshole. I suppose there’s nothing inherently wrong with a dipshit owning a dictionary.
In other news Philidephia will not be arresting people they deem “non-violent” to try to minimize disease spread in their jails.
Strych9,
“In other news Philidephia will not be arresting people they deem “non-violent” to try to minimize disease spread in their jails.”
Should not be an issue. Everyone in Philly will be sheltering in place. Crime will stop; there will be no one to arrest. All will be well.
Yeah. Right. Trust me.
Or he used Grammarly and that’s what he thought was most sophisticated sounding of its suggested alternatives for his original word.
Hmmm…time for a road trip to jewelry stores in that town. A couple bricks in the car for those big windows. It could be a profitable day for some young person. Walk in, take your mask off, cough and spit on a few clerks and you’re home free.
How long before the crooks figure that one out?
Victoria,
Let us know when you will be arriving; a bunch of us on this blog live within an hour of Philly. We can flash-mob.
Jokes about committing crimes aside (ahem)…
Most municipalities have laws on their books prohibiting the use of facial masks in public areas that inhibit law enforcement’s ability to visually identify a person. Exemptions are typically made for celebrations (Halloween) and medical gear.
In Asian countries, it has long been a common practice to wear a face mask in public as a preventative measure. As I now see people around me wearing masks in the grocery stores, in the office, and even while outside walking their dogs(!!), I wonder if we’ll begin to see a social acceptance here in the U.S.A. of wearing masks in like manner, even after this COVID panic is over. A couple of years from now, cops might not think twice about the sight of people wearing masks while walking through town, let alone want to even approach them for questions.
Hey, I just had an idea for how to avoid unwanted LEO “stop and talk” conversations…
Facial recognition toys are going to need improvements too.
Haz,
“Jokes about committing crimes aside (ahem)…”
We would have invited you, but you live too far away. Travel bans and all that.
LOL!!
You’re kidding! It’s a crime to wear a mask while robbing a jewelry store? That’s un-American! Can I wear a mask if I also kill the proprietor? I don’t want to get in any trouble.
to Larry in TX
(smile)
Depends, did you declare the robbery income on your taxes?
In Asian countries? Been to LAX lately?
He aping someone he admires. Hero worship and invocation is at the core of socialist culture. “Bright lights” are their saints.
I think he knows what “arrogate” means, but his addled brain is causing him to trip over his forked tongue.
Well, he has the “take for oneself” part, but skips the rest of the definition, “without justification.” Or if he knows that this is a part of the definition, then he is being hypocritical, since the “political” part of owning guns involves killing people. Or maybe he means that individual self defense cannot be justified, but that killing in defense of an ideology is? Hmm, I is confused.
“Well, he has the “take for oneself” part, but skips the rest of the definition, “without justification.” ”
The author perfectly understands “arrogate”. Governments are the only legitimate holders of power, not individuals. Thus, “arrogating” the right (power) to determine life or death is never justified for an individual.
If you alter your line of reasoning to match the leftists/liberals/fascists/statists, you can see that the author’s statement makes perfect sense.
Mark gets at the heart of what I meant.
However, Sam might be right, which is what I meant by “asshole”.
His usage is correct, but his binary assessment of purpose betrays a simplistic mind incapable of nuance or of 2nd and 3rd order effects.
IOW, a typical leftist.
strych9
“I don’t think he knows what “arrogate” means.”
Maybe he does or maybe he doesn’t. Anyway, I didn’t, so I looked it up in my handy-dandy American Heritage College Dictionary, as follows:
ar-ro-gate tr. v. 1. To take or claim for oneself without right; appropriate. 2. To ascribe on behalf of another in an unwarranted manner.
As-cribe v. 1. To, attribute to a specified cause, source, or origin. 2. To assign as a quality or characteristic: ascribed jealousy to the critics.
If he does know what *arrogate* means, it puts a whole new slant on the rest of what he had to say. Anyway, I thought I’d share these definitions with anyone else, who might be in the same boat as me. I’ve skipped over the etymology given in the dictionary in the interests of brevity.
“Arrogate” is a word that tells the socialist academics you’re one of them. He *had* to use it somehow.
That word was everywhere back in my grad school days. In the 16 years since I left the academic Marxist cult and rejoined America, I can count the number of times I’ve seen it used on one hand…two of them right here, today.
“To draw a pistol and choose to shoot someone who has violated your safety or sense of safety is to arrogate to yourself the right to decide whether someone ought to live or die.”
Really? The aggressor is not the one who decided to put both you and the aggressor at risk? The aggressor is not the one who decided that your safety would be in jeopardy?
The reality is that those of us who carry firearms are not deciding whether someone ought to live or die; we are deciding to defend ourselves against persons who have decided to endanger us.
We’re deciding whether or not WE (or our loved ones) live or die, the aggressor already made their choice.
VicRattlehead,
Yes! Exactly!
To put it simply: “don’t start none, won’t be none.”
We’re deciding that we want to live or at least not spend days/weeks/months in a hospital trying to recover from damage inflicted by a criminal.
Jakee308,
Yes! Exactly!
According to an online dictionary, the definition of arrogate is to claim or take something without justification. It never occurs to them, or it doesn’t matter, that this also applies to a 6’6″, 300 pound thug preying on a victim who is a foot shorter and half the weight.
Krav MAGA, dude.
No. No amount of krav maga (or judo, jiu-jitsu, karate, kung-fu, Brazilian kickbox or any other fighting technique flavor of the day) can help my 71 years old mother against young, healthy, big and aggressive attacker. A little handgun can.
Cost (in both time and money) of attaining sufficient proficiency in each one is incomparable.
It is much less risky even for young and fit man to keep his distance and simply shoot the attacker until he stops his attack, then roll on the floor with him for misguided sense of fair play in a deadly jeopardy. There are no silver medals in fight for your life. Use any advantage you have and you stil are not guaranteed to prevail. Why would you not use the best tool available if your life is at stake?
“Most often, guns in civilian hands have served as a means for power—usually white power—to violently exert itself…”
There’s nothing wrong with that though.
Clearly he’s ignoring large cities. Not too many armed white men on horses in Baltimore or Chicago.
Hehe…. 😉
I would go so far as to say if we restricted gun sales to only people who are NOT on government assistance of any kind, then people who misuse guns as criminals would drop off completely….
We ALL know what happens when a gun unlawfully ends up in the ghetto…. they immediately revert to using said firearm for criminal purposes… giving guns a bad rap amongst the low IQ “educated idiots” (worthless college graduates who produce NOTHING)…. You know, the worthless elite class….
Funny how much alike the rich idiots and the ghetto trash are….. both are useless and need attitude adjustments…. and forced to work by threat of imprisonment…
I’ve honestly never seen a left-handed AK like in the top picture.
bigstock sucks for gun related images.
Better?
Sorta.
Shall we talk about the trigger / index finger weirdness next? 🙂
I’m a bit concerned about the Philly criminal release. I’ve long thought this was a move to aid achieving totalitarianism. It works this way; put criminals back on the street. This forces citizens (who have either been disarmed or brainwashed into being disarmed) to reach to government to save them and the government responds by not putting criminals in prison but imprisoning and depriving citizens of their rights.
Well I hope they don’t travel too far from Philly. I’m about 45 mi from it and if they get this far they’ll find we don’t have a lot of police because we don’t need them as we’re pretty much law abiding. (tellingly the majority of law breakers are of minority/ethnic)
They’re liable to find that we will take action on our own about anyone attempting to take what is not theirs.
I’m certainly glad I decide a few years back to go back to being armed AND stockpiling ammo. Our Dem Governor has been trying a number of different ways to undermine the strong basis of firearms in PA. Particularly that possession is enshrined in our constitution not just the US one.
Ah well we’re living in interesting times. Buy ammo. If you can.
California has been putting “nonviolent” state prisoners back on the street or in county jails ever since a federal court ordered it to eliminate its chronic prison overcrowding a couple of years ago. And with all of those state prisoners taking up space in county jails to serve out their sentences, there is no room for holding “nonviolent” newly arrested criminals, and they are on a catch and release system, unless such person has caused injury to “the powers that be” (e.g. a police officer). So if you steal a car, sell drugs, burgle a home or business, you will be out at dawn the next day.
The Libertarians Liberals and the Left celebrate the release of “non violent” criminals. By their definition of what “non violent” means. Just read Reason magazine or the MSM. They say we have too many people in our prison system. I have offered a solution before. We just get the shoot dead on site a criminal when they are caught stealing. Or when they rob, rape or vandalize private property.
By the logic stated in the article, anyone, as in anyone, who uses a firearm for other than sport is arrogating to themselves the privilege of determining life or death. Circumstances do not matter, nor excuses.
According to the author, anyone, who chooses “To draw a pistol and choose to shoot someone who has violated your safety or sense of safety is to arrogate to yourself the right to decide whether someone ought to live or die. Merely carrying a pistol for self-protection means arrogating to yourself the same right.” One does not get to decide that one class of people, under favored circumstance, may arrogate to themselves “the right to decide whether someone ought to live or die.” The right to use deadly force in self-defense is universal, or it is not justified at all.
Liberal/leftist/statist/Dimwitocrat minds are a rat’s nest of confusion and contridiction.
Read the last line of his screed, Sam, he makes a point that I agree with :
“…but the point of the Second Amendment isn’t that an armed people can necessarily push over the government. It’s just that an armed people can only be pushed so far.”
It’s a polite reminder to those who seek power… 🙂
“Read the last line of his screed, Sam, he makes a point that I agree with”
The last line is insightful, but the thrust of the article destroys any credibility for a single line in the article. Sorta like all the reporting on the Mueller investigation, paras upon paras declaring Trump guilty of something, then a single line in a late para that notes much of the assertions already presented have no actual proof.
Well, yeah, there is that…
Sam:
You said it better than I could.
“Sam:
You said it better than I could.”
That would be odd. Are you sure you were reading one of my comments? I get lost sometimes as to what I respond to.
Maybe you should take another look at my rambling.
If the armed citizenry is unable or unwilling to push over the gubmint, then being pushed too far is empty and meaningless. Unless some very severe consequences are always a real possibility, then the gubmint can push as far as it wants with total impunity. So that closing statement is total nonsense.
I’m all for these commie LARPfags tooling up. “I shot’em because he was pointing a gun at me” sounds a lot better than “I shot him because he was a communist”.
Meh…commies have been ruling with the barrel of a gun for quite awhile. Pathetic rambling diatribe comrade Pogue!
“But but but, we’re opressed! We’re victims! I mean, never mind the fact we overwhelmingly tend to white, upper middle class millennials who haven’t had to do a hard day of work in our lives! We support speak for the working class because they’re to stupid to do it themselves! Now shut up, or we’ll throw you in the gulag, the fucking Nazi Fascist Cis white male!”
-every commie LARPfag ever
If there is a group that needs to have gun ownership closely monitored and restricted, even denied, it’s leftists. No good can come from groups like Antifa being armed.
Unfortunately, it would take an extreme 2×4 across the forehead crisis such as coronavirus we are experiencing for leftists to realize they need the 2nd Amendment.
““To draw a pistol and choose to shoot someone who has violated your safety or sense of safety is to arrogate to yourself the right to decide whether someone ought to live or die.”
What a pretentious little asshole using big words to make himself sound intelligent (you failed, you commie twit). “Arrogate” means choose WITHOUT justification. If someone is threatening my safety I AM JUSTIFIED in defending myself by whatever means I deem necessary.
The article excuses threatening, dangerous behavior by one person completely while portraying self defense as a one man militia execution squad. Trayvon gets the innocence flag too while Zimmerman is a white supremacist now.
Had to stop at that point, it’s clear where he’s going.
This communist was very happy to buy guns illegally. As far as I can tell from reading this article. He still supports government controlling gun sales. He hates the government. Useless it’s a communist government he dreams of for America. He like nearly all white Liberal gun owners is late to the history of Racist Gun Control. People like him vote for white Liberal Democrats who publicly endorsed the Mulford Act in California.
As I said before on TTAG. The Socialist is the most violent of all political types. Three of the four US Presidents were assassinated by a Socialist. John Wilkes Booth was just your average racist.
It was the Socialist Progressives who removed 2A education and rifle teams in the public schools. And they continue to advocate against this education in the schools.
He like many Leftists is a mentally dangerous paranoid. Marijuana intoxication induced? I’m not sure. It’s the “right wing” NRA that has spent money on lawsuits to force an end to gun bans in Public Housing projects. The Left spends money to force the Boy Scouts to take girls and Homosexuals. And now the Boy Scout no longer exists. They filed for bankruptcy. Many city boys and girls over the decades had their first introduction to guns in the Scouts. But no longer.
I don’t trust Liberal, socialist progressive, leftist, gun owners. They like Libertarian gun owners place gun rights on the same level as their social policy demands. Drug legalization is equally important as gun rights? Public health care is equally important as gun rights? Whatever social policy they want is more important than gun rights?
As far as I’m concerned the 2A is the only important right we have. The 1st and the rest of the amendments, we lost a very long time ago.
btw
The Left was very happy to support the Mulford Act. They supported the 1968 gun Control Act. The Left lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. And then raised the age to buy a gun from 16 to 18 and now up to 21 years of age. The Left (obama) sent machine guns, armored military vehicles and grenade launchers to civilian police departments all over the country. The Left (obama) purchased millions of rounds of ammunition for the education department. And other non military federal departments.
The Left does indeed like THEIR guns. His hero, the white socialist Eugene Debs referred to black men as apes and rapists. Yes there is a great deal of history not taught in schools.
Read the whole article. I laughed out loud when the author said their little gun club has a “Central Committee.” What’s next? A “Five Year Plan?”
If these people spent as much time studying and working as they do protesting and mouthing off on Reddit, they wouldn’t have anything to complain about.
Yes, because their idea of government is neither racist nor authoritarian…
Cock and Bull
Said it before and I’ll said it again ….. Karl Marx preached the necessity of private ownership of arms including cannons. Problem is his utopian wet dream is inherently defective and always devolves instantly into secret police, mass arrests, brutal authoritarian and totalitarian strong-man dictatorships, purges, the very antithisis of their uptopia.
There has never been and can never be a Marxist Socialist State. Every attempt corrupts itself into something brutal in the first minutes of “The Revolution”. To include the sudden reverting from pro-people power to violent State suppression and disarmament of those very same people.
These modern day Marxists are as deluded as their idiot ancestors. Oh sure, they say they support our Second Amendment rights today. But the minute their revolution succeeds, the powerful among them would do what always happens. The elites of the leadership would instantly see any voices of opposition, or less than full throated support, as anti-revolutionaries, and the slide into bloody purges and dictatorship would proceed at full speed.
The current insanity in Venezuela being merely the most recent example of this history-proven fact.
The Democrat Party owns the legacy of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, lynching, the KKK, Eugenics, Gun Control, etc. Frankly a Black American belonging to the democRat Party makes as much sense as a Jew belonging to hitler’s socialist nazi party.
Just a Socialist/communist spin on what we already knew. The major problem with Socialist/communist is they want guns in the people’s hands to put “THEM” in Power. After that happens they strip POSSESION and confiscate firearms they justify because you won’t need them anymore after the power grab. No, they want all the guns so “THEY” won’t face a revolt to take them out of power.
Same Socialist shit, different day: its not about the firearms, it’s about using them to support Socialism/Communism.
At a time when cities are being locked down, freedom of assembly is being abridged everywhere, Second Amendment rights are being denied, travel curtailed by the military in New York, and the Constitution used for toilet paper, do I really need a socialist screed to tell me why I should own guns?
And written by a pogue no less! How very fitting.
Second Amendment *PROTECTIONS*
Our rights don’t come from the Constitution or the Amendments. We — ALL PEOPLE OF THE EARTH — have the rights, certain governments protect those rights, some done. NO GOVERNMENT has the authority to infringe those rights, as that authority can NOT be delegated to government.
Let’s understand what we have and speak clearly to that. When we blindly repeat over and over again about “second amendment rights”, we instill the false notion that the right can be removed by simply repealing Amendment II. Nothing is further from the truth — the right remains, regardless of the amendment.
“we instill the false notion that the right can be removed by simply repealing Amendment II. ”
Your ability to legally exercise your natural, human and civil right to self-defense with firearms can be ended by repealing the Second Amendment. After that, you are on your own. The original intent of the constitution was scuttled when government created the exception to every word of the constitution: “compelling government interest”. From that flows, “no right is absolute” (modern interpretation: except abortion).
“Unalienable rights” no longer exist, legally. Worrying over phraseology of “gun rights” accomplishes zero in law, or politics. Telling POTG that somehow the use of shorthand confuses the anti-gun mob, or the courts, is superfluous. Trying to persuade the anti-gun brigade that “rights” do not stem from government is, likewise, ineffective.
If the task is communication with the enemy, terms must be understandable by the enemy. As in trying to negotiate with someone who speaks no english, the conversation must be translated into language familiar to the other party. As it stands, 2A defenders do not control the the language of 2A infringements. We have a near-impossible challenge of ever controlling the narrative (which means we really do not negotiate with anti-gunners, we trade unintelligible sounds (words).
Must be getting close to time for a “Constitutional Refresher”, to be held in D.C. preferable on the steps out in from of Congress. Everybody’s always looking for that perfect sound/video byte… Right?
“Must be getting close to time for a “Constitutional Refresher”,”
OMG. What are you thinking? We can’t let a dried-out piece of paper get in the way of doing the right thing(s). Even contemplating the constitution as some sort of carved-in-stone legal requirement is racisisisis. Next thing, you will want to require that every citizen and resident be able to actually read that banner of old fat white men of privilege. “Constitutional Refresher” is just code for indoctrination. The nation needs the flexibility to adjust law to whatever circumstance is harming the most people, the constitution just slows things down, and tells government what it can’t do. Bah, humbug !
Evidently this fellow never read the non-revionist history of The Union League during Reconstruction, before the white confiscation of firearms from blacks. I am not sure how much of this confiscation from blacks is true. What the controllers of the narrative don’t tell you is how The Union League, formerly the U.S. Sanitary Commission, linked up with the Yankee military occupation during Reconstruction and armed black mobs to pillage, kill etc. white southerners, most of whom were not allowed to have firearms. Thus, defenseless citizens at the mercy of the Yankee military and carpetbaggers and armed black mobs of the Union League (who by the way forced freedmen to vote Republican on pain of violence) gathered and the KKK was born as a way of defending themselves. Of course the KKK got out of hand following Reconstruction. Southerners no longer had much of a say in their own life. People who invade other nations often set off tidal waves of destabilizing forces which often end in violence. The leftist don’t like to hear this.
Read Washington’s KKK: The Union League by John Choades. Well documented by period sources. Evidently this fellow never read the non-revionist history of The Union League during Reconstruction, before the white confiscation of firearms from blacks. I am not sure how much of this confiscation from blacks is true. What the controllers of the narrative don’t tell you is how The Union League, formerly the U.S. Sanitary Commission, linked up with the Yankee military occupation during Reconstruction and armed black mobs to pillage, kill etc. white southerners, most of whom were not allowed to have firearms. Thus, defenseless citizens at the mercy of the Yankee military and carpetbaggers and armed black mobs of the Union League (who by the way forced freedmen to vote Republican on pain of violence) gathered and the KKK was born as a way of defending themselves. Of course the KKK got out of hand following Reconstruction. Southerners no longer had much of a say in their own life. People who invade other nations often set off tidal waves of destabilizing forces which often end in violence. The leftist don’t like to hear this.
Look you conservatives are wrong about a lot. I’m not going to label myself a leftist because I care about human rights or the environment. I flat out refuse the squeaky clean corporate talking points, even if racism/hate dressed up like straight talk can seem like the other side of that political coin. But…it baffles me…baffles me beyond reason why taking guns is a party requirement? Because I will become a conservative to keep mine if thats what it takes. Again, I deeply disagree with right wing apathy towards white supremacists violence/ideas and antipathy towards racial justice but if politics on the left dont support the constitution on guns we will continue to lose at politics. I think we need a new party. Thats why I will never register as a Dem. My parents taught us why gun ownership is required. Anyway, if you come after my guns my answer is the same as any right winger. You can have my AR15 the moment you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. Please come try.
“But…it baffles me…baffles me beyond reason why taking guns is a party requirement?”
Because it is a lethal threat to *their* power. Let’s suppose the Left gets what they claim they want – equality. True ‘equality’ is shared misery…
Racism rarely exists anymore. It is frankly almost gone here. When white kids dressing as black panther on halloween is racism i say nope. The left is about power. They want full control of the proletariat. There will be no middle class in the lefts future.
It should be illegal for any socialist or union thug to have a gun, leftist ideology is unAmerican! The government should make it legal to shoot somebody for supporting unions or socialism!
Yeah ok. Socialism no problem, but unions? Really? Fucktarded statement. People have the right to stand together and not get ass raped into poverty by corporate greed. Yeah work a guy to death for shit money, fuck their quality of life.
Fuck Socialists, but unions are needed. The decline of unions in America has eradicated the middle class. Rich or poor are what’s left with a small group in between.
I don’t want to get too far off topic but I just can’t let that statement lay there.
“Fuck Socialists, but unions are needed.”
Just more leftist entitlement. In my experience the only ones who need unions are lazy and/or stupid with no real work ethic. Take pride in your work and put in a honest days effort and you will get paid what you deserve in the end.
You are right, the middle class is disappearing. It got so rich, it mostly joined the upper class and therefore is nowhere to be found.
Unions priced our domestic labor out of the market and forced employers to export jobs to remain competitive.
From a historical standpoint, socialists have ALWAYS come down on the side of national/government possession of firearms whereas the personal ownership of firearms is deemed a threat to that political power structure.
I have found it interesting that socialists and communists have built the largest contingents of firearms bearing armies throughout that same history. Not to be ignored is the fact that those same armies have been responsible for the deaths of more of their own citizens than any invading army.
These folks will always disarm the general population in defense of their ideology and assemble huge cohorts of mindless, armed, uniformed goons to enforce those corrupt systems of thought.
It must also be kept in mind that socialists and communists do not view Truth as a virtue and have no shame because they have no honor. So, take everything you hear from these people as propaganda or lies or both.
Interesting juxtaposition As the Marxist Leftards are the ones responsible for the violations of the 2 nd. amendment and Constitution in general.
Commies aren’t people, and don’t believe the individual has any rights, therefore they cannot claim the protection of that which they disbelieve the existence of.
Gun control is racist…..gd people get more stupid every day….. the low IQ ANIMAL who wrote that garbage needs to be investigated for treason…..js
Defend your self …. no matter what the law or where I may live , have and will always have weapon / fire arm , loaded and ready in my home , on the street well up to you and the stare law . be safe , and alert . Take Care
Okay, that was senseless drivel and a waste of precious time. Didn’t bother finishing it.
That first paragraph was so moronic that I refuse to subject myself to the rest.
“a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home”
Truer words never spoken.
Why only black home? My home is tan colored. Is there any reason why a rifle should have a place of honor in my family?
“A rifle should have a place of honor in EVERY home.”
There! I fixed it.
Comments are closed.